fmaury/seirdy.one
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.sr.ht/~seirdy/seirdy.one synced 2024-11-23 21:02:09 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Strip useless <nav>.

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Rohan Kumar 2022-02-15 11:13:09 -08:00
parent d8cb28d1db
commit cdecf4be9a
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: 1E892DB2A5F84479
1 changed files with 2 additions and 6 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

8
content/posts/floss-security.md
View file

@ -7,17 +7,13 @@ outputs:
footnote_heading: Notes
title: "The right thing for the wrong reasons: FLOSS doesn't imply security"
---
I find it easy to handle views different from my own. I feel more troubled when I see people agree with me for the wrong reasons.
I find it quite easy to handle views different from my own. I feel more troubled when I see people agree with me for the wrong reasons.
It's no secret that I'm a passionate supporter of software freedom: I've written two posts about how Free, Libre, and Open-Source software (<abbr title="Free, Libre, and Open-Source Software">FLOSS</abbr>) is necessary but insufficient to preserve user autonomy:
<nav>
1. **[Whatsapp and the Domestication of Users](./../../../2021/01/27/whatsapp-and-the-domestication-of-users.html)**<br>The phenomenon of user domestication and defense measures: FLOSS, open platforms, and simplicity.
1. **[Whatsapp and the Domestication of Users](./../../../2021/01/27/whatsapp-and-the-domestication-of-users.html)**<br>The phenomenon of a class of predatory businesses models I call "user domestication" and defense measures: FLOSS, open platforms, and simplicity.
2. **[Keeping Platforms Open](./../../../2021/02/23/keeping-platforms-open.html)**<br>How open platforms can lose their openness, and what measures can prevent this. The Web, XMPP, email, and Matrix are examples that highlight both sides of the issue.
</nav>
After two posts spanning over 5000 words, I need to add some nuance.
One of the biggest parts of the Free and Open Source Software definitions is the freedom to study a program and modify it; in other words, access to editable source code. I agree that such access is essential; however, far too many people support source availability for the _wrong_ reasons. One such reason is that source code is necessary to have any degree of transparency into how a piece of software operates, and is therefore necessary to determine if it is at all secure or trustworthy. Although security through obscurity is certainly not a robust measure, this claim has two issues: